Tag: police state

J6 Political Prisoner Dan Wilson Forced to Self-Surrender By Activist TDS Judge

Almost two weeks after The Gateway Pundit published our story on January 6er Dan Wilson, he has had to self-surrender under the duress of DC District Judge Dabney Friedrich’s court order. Wilson was pardoned on January 20th by President Trump, and now his neck is under the boot of a radical activist judge. She is disobeying a direct order by THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and acting like a spoiled brat bully who hits her little sister because she wants to play with her toy, so her sister doesn’t have any fun either.

It is unbelievable that these unhinged individuals like Judge Friedrich are presiding over our federal courts. She has gone above and beyond her hatred for President Trump by doubling down on her bias towards a January 6th defendant, whose case she presided over. Dan WIlson should be a free man today. The government has recognized that the case against him falls under the scope of the Presidential Pardon.

Wilson has been fighting a case that is directly related to the January 6th-inspired FBI raid on his home. He was arrested after the FBI finished searching the residence, although he was not arrested for his attendance on January 6th.

Wait, what? Yes, the warrant was for J6, but he was arrested for another reason and NOT J6 (at the time). His arrest was for having guns at his home in Kentucky. Over 30 years ago, as a very young man, Wilson became a felon and served his time in prison. According to the law, he should not have had the guns in his home. Some may debate that constitutionally; he can have guns. However, in this case, for right now, it is a debate for another time because the law recognized by the people who lock you up is not debatable, but how they found these guns at his home is.

Keep reading

Lawn Gone Liberty: The Update

It’s finally spring.

Better mow your lawn.

If you don’t, your town government may fine you thousands of dollars a day. 

Worse, if you can’t pay the fine, they may confiscate your home.

Six years ago, in Dunedin, Florida, Jim Ficken let his grass grow. 

His mom had died, and he’d left town to take care of her estate. He asked a friend to cut his grass, but that friend died, too!

In the two months Ficken was away, his grass grew taller than 10 inches.

City bureaucrats started fining him.

But they didn’t tell Ficken that. When he finally got back, there was no notice of the $500-a-day fine. Only when he ran into a “code enforcement officer” did he learn he’d be getting “a big bill.”

When the bill came, it was for $24,454.

Ficken quickly mowed his lawn. Then the city tacked on another $5,000 for “non-compliance.”

Ficken didn’t have that much money, so city officials told him they would take his home.

Fortunately, Ficken discovered the libertarian law firm, the Institute for Justice, which fights government abuse.

IJ lawyer Ari Bargil took on Ficken’s case, arguing that the $30,000 fine violates the Constitution’s limits on “excessive bail, fines, and cruel punishments.”

But a judge ruled that the fine was “not excessive.” 

Of course, judges are just lawyers with robes. Often they are lawyer/bureaucrats who’ve become very comfortable with big government.

I call a $30K penalty for not cutting your lawn absurdly excessive, 

IJ attorney Bargil told local news stations, “If $30,000 for tall grass in Florida is not excessive, it is hard to imagine what is.”

Dunedin’s politicians often impose heavy fines for minor transgressions.

One resident told us, “They fined me $32,000 for a hole the size of a quarter in my stucco … For a lawn mower in my yard … They fine people they can pick on … and they keep picking on them.” 

It happens elsewhere, too.

Charlotte, North Carolina, fined a church for “excessive pruning.”

Danbury, Connecticut, charged a resident $200,000 for leaving his yard messy.

Bargil notes, “It’s pretty apparent that code enforcement is a major cash cow.”

In just five-and-a-half years, Dunedin collected $3.6 million in fines. 

But by then, I and others had noticed. We were reporting on Dunedin’s heavy fines. 

So did the politicians sheepishly acknowledge that they had milked citizens with excessive fines and give the money back?

Of course not. They hired a PR firm. That cost taxpayers another $25,000 a month.

Keep reading

The Swirling Vortex Of Weaponized Lawfare

Like a bad ‘When a chicken walked into a pub’ type of joke, when activist litigants walk into a courtroom and meet injunction-happy judges, the result is a swirling vortex of weaponised lawfare. In discussing the current jurisdictional kerfuffle between the US federal executive and judiciary, I find it impossible to overlook the total failure of the courts to protect people’s rights, dignity, and liberty under comprehensive assault from the administrative state during the Covid years. I accept the possibility that this may colour my judgment on the controversy.

It has become sadly obvious in recent years that the gravest threat to the theory and practice of democracy is not the rise of populism with wannabe fascists and neo-Nazis as their seductive tribunes, but technocratic elites with barely concealed disdain for the political beliefs and voting behaviour of the ‘deplorables.’ Moreover, as the firewalls of resistance to populist advance crumble one by one under assault from enraged voters, the final frontier of elite resistance is the courts. The legal clerisy—lawyers, law professors, and judges—is part of the ruling elite and the last line of defence for safeguarding victories already won by social justice warriors in their long march through the institutions.

Judicial Fallibility

Unlike every other profession, is the judiciary infallible? Clearly not, else they would not have been complicit in the biggest violation ever of people’s liberties and freedoms during the Covid years. Every country with a credible rule of law every so often overturns wrongful convictions from the past. Among the best-known Australian examples are those of Lindy Chamberlain and Cardinal George Pell.

As a corollary, are judges individually infallible and free of any influence of personal prejudices, beliefs, and life experiences? Again, clearly not. If they were, then in every single verdict heard by a bench of judges, verdicts would be unanimous and we could save considerable time and expense by dispensing with layers of appeal. From Australia consider the case of Cardinal Pell once again. He was convicted by jury verdict, the conviction was upheld 2-1 by the state appeals court, but overturned unanimously by the High Court of Australia (our apex court). Same laws, same evidence, different judgments.

Is every judge a paragon of judicial integrity and competence? Not so. A few are corrupt or guilty of other acts of malfeasance. Many more, I suspect, are incompetent rather than dishonest or corrupt. Mechanisms for acknowledging incompetence are fewer and less frequently invoked than for detecting and punishing corruption and malfeasance. Yet, even the latter cannot always be relied upon.

There is an interesting scandal playing out in India even now. On the night of 14 March, the official residence of a judge of the Delhi High Court,  Justice Yashwant Varma, went up in flames. Firefighters and police officers who rushed to deal with the conflagration discovered jute sacks of burnt-out cash. The Police Commissioner got in touch with the chief justice of Delhi High Court on the 15th to apprise him of developments, who in turn communicated the information to the Supreme Court of India. The Chief Justice of India established a three-judge panel to probe the matter and its report, which has been uploaded online (with redactions) in the interests of transparency given the intense public interest, substantiates that there are grounds for a full and proper inquiry. Justice Varma meanwhile has been transferred to another high court (against the protest of that court’s bar association) pending further investigations and action.

The hint of corruption would very likely have gone entirely undiscovered but for the fortuitous fire in the judge’s house. This in itself is an indictment of the inadequacy of oversight mechanisms for judges.

A final preliminary question: Unlike all other branches of government, is the judiciary collectively and are judges individually magically incapable of judicial overreach and in need of being put back in their lane? I suppose that such a perfect distribution of relative self-discipline among the branches of government is possible but, being an old cynic, forgive my scepticism. Not all judges have the necessary self-awareness and strength of character to avoid the temptation to abuse their powers and authority. On the contrary, the legal profession has a collective self-interest to expand the reach of its authority over all other sectors and, conversely, to protect itself from pushback by others.

A follow-up question is: How can the slow and deliberative process of judicial decision-making be reconciled with the need for sometimes urgent action by the executive? The judiciary is habituated into its own sequence and pace of actions. Thus for judges, the ultimate acquittal of Cardinal Pell by the High Court of Australia was a triumph of judicial institutions and process. To ordinary mortals, the process itself was a harsh punishment, and the 405 days that the aging cardinal spent behind bars was a damning miscarriage of justice.

In other words, from the date of his indictment in June 2017 through two jury trials, a first failed appeal, the final successful appeal, release from prison in April 2020, and death in January 2023 still unable to fully cleanse the taint of paedophilia, more than half of Cardinal Pell’s remaining time on earth was under malicious trial and punishment by a cadre of anti-Catholic Church activists out for blood. The nation demanded a scapegoat for the Catholic clergy’s historical sexual abuse of children. I write this not just as a non-Christian but as an atheist.

Keep reading

Third Former Rotherham Police Officer Arrested Over Child Sex Abuse Investigation

A former police officer accused of raping a teenager in child-sex scandal town Rotherham has been arrested, the third such arrest in the investigation so far.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) announced a former police constable of the South Yorkshire Police was arrested on Monday. The former officer, a man in his 50s, is suspected of raping a teenage girl in the town of Rotherham in 2004.

IOPC spokesman Emily Barry said the investigation into the South Yorkshire Police is being conducted by the South Yorkshire Police under the Office’s direction, and that they have received complaints against police officers from six women. This new arrest pertains to the sixth and latest woman to come forward, she said.

Barry said: “These complaints are being handled sensitively and thoroughly investigated and a third former officer has now been arrested. At the end of the investigation we will decide whether a file of evidence will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider criminal charges.”

As previously reported, two former police officers were arrested on suspicion of child sex abuse last year. One of those former officers, a man in his 60s has been arrested twice over the course of the investigation in relation to separate allegations, including alleged child sex abuse against a victim between 1997 and 2002, and indecent assault against two other girls between 1995 and 1999.

A second former officer, a man in his 50s, was arrested on suspicion of “sexual assault and misconduct in public office and one count of indecent assault in connection to incidents that reportedly occurred around 1995-1996.”

Keep reading

Maryland Bill To Let Adults Make Marijuana Edibles And Concentrates At Home Heads To The Governor

A Maryland House bill that would allow adults to manufacture marijuana edibles and concentrates for personal use is officially heading to the governor. And a Senate companion version of the measure is also advancing through the legislature.

On Wednesday, the Senate gave final approval to the House-passed legislation from Dels. David Moon (D) and Luke Clippinger (D), voting 38-9 to send it to Gov. Wes Moore (D). The companion from Sen. William Smith (D), meanwhile, cleared the Senate in a 35-8 vote last week and now pending before the House of Delegates Rules and Executive Nominations Committee.

While the state’s cannabis law already allows adults to cultivate their own plants, the measures  would expand their options to account for non-flower marijuana products that can be made at home.

However, they would continue to prohibit the use of volatile solvents to create cannabis concentrates.

Under the legislation, possession, cultivation and distribution of high-volume cannabis in excess of 50 pounds would no longer be considered a felony punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. Instead, it would be a misdemeanor carrying a maximum 10 year sentence and/or a $50,000 fine.

Keep reading

Colorado Bill Would Classify ‘Misgendering,’ ‘Deadnaming,’ as Child Abuse, Impact Parental Rights, Custody Cases

Colorado Democrats are proposing a bill that would classify “misgendering” and “deadnaming” as forms of child abuse, or “coercive control,” that would be considered in child custody disputes.

The bill, HB25-1312, was introduced on Friday and is set to go before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The bill’s sponsors are Democrat Reps. Lorena García, Rebekah Stewart Faith Winter, and Sen. Chris Kolker.

The bill subscribes to the false idea that one can identify as or become a different sex than they were born as, often called “gender identity.” The bill defines “deadname” as “to purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual’s gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual by their birth name rather than their chosen name.” The bill defines “misgender” as “to purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual’s gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual using an honorific or pronoun that conflicts with the individual’s gender identity or gender expression.”

According to the bill’s summary, the legislation would direct courts making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child “for purposes of parenting time” to consider “deadnaming,” “misgendering,” or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s sex change services as types of “coercive control.”

Keep reading

Trump’s new plan: No free trade without free speech… UK freaks out…

Western nations love to pretend they’re the gold standard of freedom and that all-important precious democracy—but lately, countries like the UK are looking a lot more like the regimes we used to fight against. When anti-abortion activists get arrested for talking or praying near a clinic and comedians get investigated for hurting people’s feels, it might be time to stop pretending you’re the “gold standard” of anything except totalitarianism. This isn’t inclusiveness by any stretch, and it’s not democracy either. This is Marxism in lipstick, dressed up as “tolerance,” all while silencing dissent and criminalizing free speech and free thought.

That’s why President Trump’s new idea is exactly what the West, namely Europe, needs right now. Trump’s new plan is to put economic pressure on these so-called allies and force them to respect real human rights, starting with free speech.

Under Trump’s free trade, countries like the UK wouldn’t get to enjoy the perks of trading with the US while trampling all over people’s basic civil liberties.

No free speech? No free trade deal. Period.

Daily Express:

Sir Keir Starmer’s hopes of agreeing a free trade deal with the US could be at risk over a free speech row. The US state department issued a statement on Sunday saying it was “concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom” in relation to the case of an anti-abortion campaigner.

It said it was “monitoring” the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, who was prosecuted for holding a sign near a Bournemouth abortion clinic reading: “Here to talk if you want.” A verdict in the case is due on Friday.

The woman who is being prosecuted for the alleged breach of a “buffer zone” outside a Bournemouth abortion clinic has said she is “grateful” after the US State Department expressed concern over the case.

Asked about the comments, a source familiar with trade negotiations told The Telegraph there should be “no free trade without free speech”.

Vice President JD Vance has previously raised concerns about free speech in the UK.

But the UK’s Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insisted free speech has not been part of tariff negotiations with the US.

He also rejected the suggestion a deal with the US to avoid tariffs is done but not signed.

Mr Reynolds said: “Obviously, there are things from different people in the administration that they’ve said in the past about this, but it’s not been part of the trade negotiations that I’ve been part of.”

And apparently, the idea that the UK would have to meet bare minimum standards for free speech for their own citizens was enough to send shockwaves through the Good Morning Britain staff.

Keep reading

Insanity: AfD’s Petr Bystron Loses Immunity for Sharing Merkel Photo They Said Wasn’t a Nazi Salute — Until He Posted It

The EU Parliament has lifted the immunity of AfD foreign policy spokesman Petr Bystron because he shared a photo of Angela Merkel on Twitter in 2022.

The reason? Bizarre: since Merkel is seen raising her arm in the image, it’s being interpreted as a Nazi salute – but only because Bystron posted it.

Prosecutor: Waving is not a Nazi salute

This farce has a backstory: In 2022, during a protest against COVID-19 measures, Bystron waved to the crowd.

The public prosecutor immediately launched an investigation: “Nazi salute!”

In response, hundreds of AfD supporters filed complaints against Angela Merkel, who had been photographed waving in a similar manner. But in each case, the prosecutor ruled: “Not a Nazi salute, no investigation.”

Bystron used exactly that photo of Merkel in court to defend himself—successfully. The court ruled that not every raised right arm constitutes a Nazi salute. “Great!” Bystron thought. “Then using the Merkel photo should be no problem.”

Far from it! Now, the prosecutor claims it is a Nazi salute after all – and has indicted Bystron for spreading unconstitutional symbols!

Strange? More than that. The charges came a full year after the image was posted on X.

The alleged violation of §86 of the German Criminal Code only came to the prosecutor’s attention once the EU election campaign began – with Bystron leading the AfD list alongside top candidate Krah. What a coincidence!

Keep reading

FBI Weaponizes Background Checks To Enforce California Gun Ban

When you go to a gun store to buy a new gun, you can expect a few things to happen.  First, some paperwork.  Second, you can expect to have to pass a background check before leaving with your gun.  And third, you can expect that the gun store will keep a record of your purchase for as long as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) requires.  After all, that is how the government traces crime guns back to their original purchasers.

But what you might not expect is an FBI agent receiving a ping that you – yes, you – just successfully bought a gun.  And you might be surprised to learn that this agent has been receiving notifications of your purchases for months – or years.

Of course, such a surveillance scheme would be flatly unconstitutional – not to mention a violation of several safeguards already codified in federal law.  Yet slowly but surely, the government has been building a record of the private collections of thousands of American citizens, even though federal law expressly prohibits that “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions” be established.

Of course, even though they are being monitored, these victims remain law-abiding, meaning the government has no probable cause to justify seeking a warrant authorizing such a search in the first place.

Now, Gun Owners of America has discovered that the FBI has been using its Second Amendment surveillance program not only to enforce federal law, but also to help California target owners of newly banned “assault weapons.”

FBI’s NICS Monitoring Scheme

When news first broke of the FBI and ATF’s joint “NICS Monitoring” surveillance scheme, the public was shocked.  As journalist John Crump reported in April of 2021, “monitoring of NICS isn’t for prohibited people,” but rather those who are eligible to purchase firearms but who law enforcement agents nevertheless suspect might commit a crime.

GOA learned that targets of NICS Monitoring – which exploits records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) before they are deleted within 24 hours – never receive notice that their firearm transactions are being monitored.  Thus, there is no way to challenge the FBI’s surveillance.

In fact, in order to enroll a target for NICS Monitoring, an agent only needs to complete an internal request form. At no point does an agent seeking NICS Monitoring have to convince a judge (or anyone other than himself, really) that this surveillance comports with the Fourth Amendment.  Entirely usurpingly, then, the FBI’s abuse of NICS Monitoring is rampant.

Keep reading

New Hampshire Senate Committee Rejects Three Cannabis Bills, Including Legalization And Medical Marijuana Homegrow

A week after hearing testimony on four House-passed cannabis bills, a New Hampshire Senate committee has voted to recommend killing three of measures, including a Republican-led legalization proposal and a plan to let state-registered medical marijuana patients grow plants at home.

Another bill rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing on Tuesday would have allowed existing medical marijuana dispensaries—known in the state as alternative treatment centers (ATCs)—to buy nonintoxicating hemp cannabinoid products from commercial producers and, after lab testing, use them in products for patients.

Lawmakers voted 3–1 to designate each of the three bills as “inexpedient to legislate” (ITL), essentially recommending that they not proceed. All the bills will nevertheless move to the Senate floor, at which point the full body will have the option to approve them despite the committee’s recommendations.

While the legalization bill—HB 75, from Rep. Kevin Verville (R)—was widely seen as unlikely to make it through the Senate, advocates said the committee’s recommended rejection of the two medical marijuana proposals from Rep. Wendy Thomas (D) underscores the body’s critical reception in general of cannabis-related legislation.

“It appears that a few senators just want to kill every bill that deals with cannabis policy, no matter how modest and non-controversial,” Matt Simon, director of public and government relations at the medical marijuana provider GraniteLeaf Cannabis, told Marijuana Moment. “That’s very unfortunate because support for cannabis policy reform has always been bipartisan in this state.”

Simon added that he’s still hopeful the Senate will move forward on at least the hemp cannabinoids bill, HB 51, once it reaches the chamber floor.

(Disclosure: Simon supports Marijuana Moment’s work via a monthly pledge on Patreon.)

The panel did not act at Tuesday’s meeting on the fourth cannabis bill before it, HB 196, which would expand the state’s annulment process of past arrests and convictions around simple marijuana possession.

Keep reading